[ajkjk]

eh I feel this but it's a lot simpler than that. Not "if everyone built everything correctly" but "if everyone's work was even slightly better than complete garbage". I do not see many examples of companies building things that are not complete embarrassing shit. I worked at some companies and the things we built was complete embarrassing shit. The reasons are obvious: nobody cares internally to do it, and nobody externally has any standards, and the money still flows if you do a bad job so why do better?

What happens in practice is that the culture exterminates the drive for improvement: not only are things bad, but people look at you if you're crazy if you think things should be better. Like in 2025 people defend C, people defend Javascript, people write software without types, people write scripts in shell languages; debugging sometimes involves looking at actual bytes with your eyes; UIs are written in non-cross-platform ways; the same stupid software gets written over and over at a million companies, sending a large file to another person is still actually pretty hard; leaving comments on it is functionally impossible ... these are software problems, everything is shit, everything can be improved on, nothing should be hard anymore but everything still is; we are still missing a million abstractions that are necessary to make the world simple. Good lord, yesterday I spent two hours trying to resize a PDF. We truly live in the stone age; the only progress we've made is that there are now ads on every rock.

I really wish it was a a much more ruthlessly competitive landscape. One in which if your software is bad, slow, hard to debug, hard to extend, not open source, not modernized, not built on the right abstractions, hard to migrate on or off of, not receptive to feedback, covered in ads... you'd be brutally murdered by the competition in short order. Not like today where you can just lie on your marketing materials and nobody can really do anything because the competition is just as weak. People would do a much better job if they had to to survive.

[laserlight]

> the money still flows if you do a bad job so why do better?

I'll raise. The money flows because you do a bad job. Doing a good job is costly and takes time. The money cannot invest that much time and resources. Investing time and resources builds an ordinary business. The money is in for the casino effect, for the bangs. Pull the arm and see if it sticks. If yes, good. Keep pulling the arm. If not, continue with another slot machine.

[Quarrelsome]

I would argue that the money is short termism though. It just assumes short term returns are the correct choice because it lacks the technical understanding of the long term benefits of a good job.

In my experience many acquisitions set the peak of a given software product. The money then makes the argument that its "good enough" and flogs the horse until its dead and a younger more agile team of developers eventually build a new product that makes it irrelevant. The only explanation I have for why so many applications fail to adapt is because of a cultural issue between the software and the money, that always gets resolved by the money winning.

For example I would suggest that the vast majority of desktop apps, especially those made by SMEs, originally in MFC or something fail to make the transition to online services that they need today because of this conflict. The company ends up dying and the money never works out what it did wrong because its much harder to appreciate those long term effects than the short term ones that gave them more money at the start.

[BobaFloutist]

Wait, which is the correct programming language to defend? C and Javascript are on pretty opposite sides of most spectra....

[jeltz]

Languages which are not hard to use and dangerous. I work in C professionally right now but would much rather work in either Zig or Rust.

[mamcx]

Today is easy (finally we have Rust, Zig, Odin, Swift, Go etc that show marked improvements), but the op is correct: A lot of progress was stalled because people defend sub optimal tools.

Every time somebody suggest "but C is wrong" the answer was "You should not do the wrong, be careful every time and things will be fine!"

P.D: Yesterday we have pascal/ADA/effiel/ocalm and others, but the major issues is that C/JS should have be improved to remove the bad things, and add the good things. Is not as if what or why to do it was a mystery, it was just the fear and arrogance against change.

And this cause too much inertia against "reinvent the wheel" and too much hate against anybody that even try

[ajkjk]

the new ones we should have made by now that fix their problems...

Zig and Rust and TS are a start

[xigoi]

They are on the same side of the “number of serious design flaws due to historical incidents” spectrum.

[BobaFloutist]

Right, so, to reiterate the question, which language(s) are on the opposite side of that spectrum?

[oivey]

He seems to have mistaken his personal opinions on which languages and language features are good for some objective truth.

Ironically, that’s part of why we can’t have nice things. People who aren’t open to other viewpoints and refuse to compromise when possible impede progress.

[ajkjk]

well I was being flippant

but

what do we have other than our opinions? I think everything sucks so that's what I said.

[tempfile]

Programming languages are not on a spectrum. I guess they dislike the syntax of JS and the low-level no-batteries of C.

[BobaFloutist]

Programming languages, like literally everything else, are on many spectra.

[tempfile]

Did your comment always say "most spectra"? I swear it was "a spectra" before. Sorry, I must have misread.

[BobaFloutist]

It did, but it is an unusual plural to encounter in conversation so I don't blame you for missing it. Kudos for owning up!

[dmurray]

Presumably the spectrum that would have Rust and Typescript at the other end.

[BobaFloutist]

Is that just age?

[klardotsh]

Well, sure, age is part of it. I would hope languages coming out 40-50 years after their predecessors (in the case of Rust following C/C++) would have improved upon those predecessors and learned from the ideas of computer science in the intermediate years.

(Coincidentally this is one of my chief complaints about Go: despite being about the same age as Rust, it took the avenue of discarding quite a lot of advancements in programming language theory and ergonomics since C)

[cestith]

Go has a much different set of design goals than Zig, Nim, or especially Rust. Go is really for people who want a few major improvements on C like easier builds, faster builds, higher-level standard string handling, direct support for some form of concurrency, an optional GC which defaults to on, and a few syntax tweaks - things that a modern C might have that were not going to make it into a standards revision. Rust, to support ownership and the borrow checker at compile time, had to build a useful language around that hugely helpful but quite restrictive requirement. They subsequently went different directions than the Go team on a lot of the other language features. Zig, Nim, and D are something in between those extremes in their own ways.

As someone with a background of a lot of time with Perl and the Pascal/Ada family who was rooting for Julia, Go strikes a good balance for me where I would have used Perl, Python, Julia, Ruby, or shell for system tasks. I haven’t done a lot of work in Rust yet, because in the infrastructure space speed to implement is usually more important than performance and Go is a lot faster already than Python or Ruby and because my team as a whole has much more experience with it. I certainly appreciate why the folks at work who do the performance-critical network and video software use mostly Rust to do what they used to do in C, Java, or C++.

[Quarrelsome]

we have to accept that the vast majority of people don't think like us. They don't think its complete garbage because they can't look hard enough to appreciate that fidelity.

While it might be better if everyone thought like us and wanted things to be _fundamentally_ good, most people don't, and most people money >> less people money and the difference in scale is vast. We could try to build a little fief where we get to set the rules but network effects are against us. If anything our best shot is to try to reverse the centralisation of the internet because that's a big cause of enshittification.